Under the gun: pressure group politics surrounding Bill C-68, Canada's gun control legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the pressure group politics prevalent in the legislative process of Bill C-68. This case study titled, "Under the Gun: Pressure Group Politics Surrounding Bill C-68 in Canada," determines the effectiveness of lobbying strategies employed by key groups in relation to the level of influence exerted on the state elite during Bill C-68's legislative journey. This examination will describe that the environment in which Bill C-68 was formulated followed a pluralistic model. Pressure groups from both sides of the debate galvanized their positions to promote their interests to the media, the Canadian electorate, and most importantly to effect the political decisions of state actors. Although the level of contact by interest groups and level of consultation within the policy community was extraordinary and challenged the role of the government and the political will of its actors, the autonomy of the state was not jeopardized. Consequently, the author argues that political leadership supplemented by party discipline afforded this legislation safe passage through parliament and sufficient insulation for the state elite concerning pressure group influence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".